f8619c No.6046
I was going to post this on /christian/ but I'm worried the thread is just going to get shit on by Catholics who will dismiss everyone else, not let other viewpoints see the light of day, and end up getting the thread deleted. So I'm posting it here.
What are your thoughts on contraception?
Now I am Orthodox, and as such I follow my Church in opposing any form on contraception that entails abortion, including birth control pills because they're abortifacients. But I have to say, barrier methods such as condoms I don't feel are always wrong. St. John Chrysostom condemns contraceptive methods which induce abortion, but he himself does write that marriage doesn't always have to entail procreation, but now especially with the advent of Christ, it is for our salvation. It can prevent us from lust and fornication as St. Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 7. As such, married couples should produce children, but every act of intercourse doesn't have to be for that purpose. Natural family planning is the best option, but if your spiritual father gives permission, oikonomia, for the sake of avoiding the sins of lust or adultery or even rape, using barrier methods, I am not strictly opposed to, and they don't change the bodies natural processes either like with other birth control methods which may cause harm to the embryo.
While I respect the Latin view, and encourage them to obey their Bishops, it seems to be founded upon Stoic & Augustinian ideas that sex is bad and the only purpose of it is procreation in marriage. It's too legalistic and it doesn't take into account human nature and our salvation, it lays a heavy burden and is almost Pharisaic. Marriage is a sacrament, it is about the two people involved in the marriage. Children can be a product of this marriage, and this is good because this is what God originally made marriage for, but now that the hope of the resurrection awaits us marriage is a matter concerning salvation, it is a gift God allows us to have to help control our own weaknesses as human beings that we might obtain the glory of Christ. Amen.
Latins scoff at us, but they just don't understand how Orthodox theology is, they can't see outside their little scholastic bubbles. They somehow think we've gone liberal when really this is always the Orthodox opinion which has been successfully applied in different situations through different times in history. They don't understand the Eastern fathers, and they disrespect our respective tradition.
A lot of your might share my opinion because many of you are Orthodox, but many are Protestants and I'd also like you hear your view. Everyone is welcome to discuss here. :)
____________________________
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
34b1fc No.6048
You are absolutely right that the issue is related to the undue influence of stoicism on the Roman church. They twist (marital) sex into a dirty thing and it has carryover into the contraception question.
We evangelicals are the most anti abortion group based on our view of life beginning at conception. As you say, anything that entails abortion or even has the risk of entailing abortion should be simply rejected.
My wife uses nuvaring and I wear condoms. We are newlyweds who can't afford a child, but we also recognize our obligation to have children later. Nuvaring affects the formation of the egg so conception can't happen but doesn't have the second effect of being an abortifacient like "the pill". Condoms obviously prevent sperm from entering. We use both for redundancy.
The only reason to find non-abortion contraception sinful is if you import an ontological belief that sex must always provide for the possibility of conception, which I don't find to be consistent with the figurative language of non-reproductive sex acts in song of Solomon
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
9329e2 No.6049
>>6048
>Nuvaring affects the formation of the egg so conception can't happen but doesn't have the second effect of being an abortifacient like "the pill"
There are no mental gymnastics possible where you can classify one form of hormonal birth control as abortifacient and not the rest. All hormonal birth control prevents ovulation, but also prevents proper endometrial development, so if ovulation did occur and the egg was fertilized, it would be unable to implant.
Also, hormonal birth control is part of the reason for the infertility epidemic we are experiencing. Fucking up your entire endocrine system is not a smart thing to do, and many women end up permanently sterile or stuck shelling out tens of thousands of dollars to undergo invasive IVF cycles to try to conceive. Just tell your wife to stick her finger up her cunt every morning when she showers and tell you not to fuck her when she's ovulating.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
f8619c No.6050
>>6049
Or just keep using the condom and throw away nuvaring.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
34b1fc No.6051
>>6049
No, I did the research. There is nothing to indicate at all that a fertilized egg is inhibited from implantation because of nuvaring
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
9329e2 No.6053
>>6051
You are a fucking retard. It is the same hormones. It does the exact same thing. You did no research at all: https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/nuvaring/about/pac-20394784
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
1b582e No.6056
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>6046
Just to clarify, Catholics don't think sex is evil, we just think precreation and childbirth is good and the couple is participating with God in the act of creation
Natural family planning is available and it doesn't have the side effects of birth control
Also memepastor has a great well researched run down of birth control including the fact that birth control pills are basically abortion
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
005d7c No.6058
>>6053
Yes, I did
https://www.ajog.org/article/S0002-9378(99)70120-1/fulltext?mobileUi=0
I know that it's theorized to prevent implantation, but the only relevant scientific journal article I found concluded that there is no evidence in support of the theory.
notice that mayoclinic and drugs.com say "might" with no citation.
Calm down and don't insult me.
>>6056
Why does Catholic theology require that Mary was perpetually virgin, and immaculately conceived? The answer is stoicism.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
1b582e No.6060
>>6058
I admit I don't believe in immaculate conception - yeah not a perfect Catholic
At the same time, neither have anything to do with sex being evil
we all believe in the virgin birth, does that mean we all think sex is evil. That's just ridiculous
immaculate conception is a doctrine related to original sin and used to explain Catholic notions of the sinlessness of Mary
perpetual virginity does have some scriptural basis, like Jesus asking one of his followers to take care of Mary as a son (suggesting she had no other children)
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
005d7c No.6061
>>6060
It does have carryover, because the Catholic explanations are clear examples of stoic influence.
Here's another rabbit hole, why are priests required to be unmarried?
>Jesus asking one of his followers to take care of Mary as a son (suggesting she had no other children)
I have never heard that take. That is a huge stretch.
Mary's non (perpetual) virginity has irrefutable evidence: the existence of biological siblings to Jesus
<Mark 6:3 NASB — “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of fnJames and Joses and Judas and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?” And they took offense at Him.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
1b582e No.6064
>>6061
Martin Luther, John Calvin and pretty much every theologian before them all explained Mark 6 thus - Jews called their cousins brother and sister - they knew this because they had Jews in Europe who continued to call their cousins brother and sister
If Jesus had brothers and sisters' why would Jesus say "woman behold your son" to Mary pointing at one of his disciples - it would have been the brother or brother in law's job to take care of Mary. The fact that a disciple had to do it is pretty clear indication that Mary did not have other children
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
9329e2 No.6067
>>6058
>I know that it's theorized to prevent implantation
Exactly the same as birth control pills.
>but the only relevant scientific journal article I found concluded that there is no evidence in support of the theory.
The exact same amount as with birth control pills.
>notice that mayoclinic and drugs.com say "might" with no citation.
Right, exactly the same as birth control pills. Exactly like I told you. Any mental gymnastics used to claim pills cause abortions applies equally to ALL hormonal birth control.
>>6064
>Jews called their cousins brother and sister
That isn't true, and isn't relevant because the Judeans of the bible have nothing to do with jews.
>If Jesus had brothers and sisters' why would Jesus say "woman behold your son" to Mary pointing at one of his disciples
Because the first born son has that responsibility. So Jesus had to take care of her, and did so by assigning someone to take his place.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
35dd36 No.6071
>>6067
>The exact same amount as with birth control pills.
Show me the basis for your statement
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
1b582e No.6073
>>6067
>Because the first born son has that responsibility. So Jesus had to take care of her, and did so by assigning someone to take his place.
So you're suggesting that in cases where the first born son is violently killed, it's not the remaining kids that take on his responsibility to care for the mother but rather it falls to one of the first born son's buddies?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
9329e2 No.6098
>>6071
I do not understand what you want. You already have two links confirming what I said. Anything that states hormonal birth control "may" prevent implantation makes that statement for all hormonal birth control. Anything that shows this does not occur in practice, shows it does not occur with any birth control. Read his link about how nuvaring doesn't prevent implantation, it clearly says neither does any other hormonal birth control.
>>6073
No, I am saying that the first born son could choose to have someone else fulfill that duty. That could be a younger brother, or it could be someone else he trusted.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
e93341 No.6100
>>6098
I realize now that you're not condemning nuvaring as an abortifacient, but you're defending all hormonal birth control as not proven to prevent implantation. You're not the other guy.
My mistake.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
d143d6 No.6114
>>6046
The Bible says all of God's creation is good, and that includes sex. My personal view is that sex is too good to be had without the intention of procreation. It's a question of beauty to me.
Sex with the same woman gets boring after a while, that's a fact, so why not have less sex, but make it count? I'm a former fornicator turned no-fapper, and I live a healthy and athletic lifestyle. My gains have improved, my discipline and willpower have improved, I'm overall happier and free from mood swings and the like. Wasting sperm is a true waste, because it's made up of minerals and proteins that your body needs. Remember Onan.
Is it not better then to avoid fruitless sex, but use the time and energy instead to pursue manly duties (like race war and work), so you can afford to have more children in the long run? Once you're dead it won't matter how often you've had sex, only what you've left behind, and in heaven it won't matter either. In a way then it wouldn't be a separate sin, but fall under the sins of lacking. Still, sin is sin.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
9329e2 No.6118
>>6114
>Remember Onan.
He got in shit for not doing his duty. There's no indication that it is a general statement against jizzing.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
a08fd2 No.6130
>>6114
>Sin is sin
>My personal view is that sex is too good to be had without the intention of procreation. It's a question of beauty to me.
Totally arbitrary
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
1b582e No.6162
>>6118
There is no absolute duty to marry your brother's wife, you are allowed to refuse under the Levitical law - so his crime for which God punished him must be for spilling his seed on the ground (ie pull out method of contraception)
Quoting from Deuteronomy 25
>7 However, if a man does not want to marry his brother’s wife, she shall go to the elders at the town gate and say, “My husband’s brother refuses to carry on his brother’s name in Israel. He will not fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to me.” 8 Then the elders of his town shall summon him and talk to him. If he persists in saying, “I do not want to marry her,” 9 his brother’s widow shall go up to him in the presence of the elders, take off one of his sandals, spit in his face and say, “This is what is done to the man who will not build up his brother’s family line.” 10 That man’s line shall be known in Israel as The Family of the Unsandaled.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
9329e2 No.6181
>>6162
>Quoting from Deuteronomy 25
He did not do that. That's the point. He deceived everyone, pretending to go along with his duty and in fact cheating.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
3b18d0 No.6192
>>6162
The Levitical law hadn't yet been given during Genesis.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.